WW2 Aviation Mythbusters
- Thread starter FLYBOYJ
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello Siegfried
On 17pdr APDS ammo
Penetration ability against sloped plate, in this case 17pdr against the 80mm thick glacis plate of a Panther: From US 12th Army report on the tests at Isigny
...
(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this test with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is explained by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted."
So 17pdr Sabot used in Isigny was most probably sub-standard, so it's rather useless to draw too much from it on the behaviour of 17pdr Sabot. Those used at Balleroy penetrated 60% of cases and both which hit the glacis penetrated. So odds were that 17pdr APDS shot would penetrate the glacis of Panther from 700y, Tiger was holed even by normal APCBC 17pdr shot up to some 1500y head on if the shot hit, problem was that 17pdr wasn't very accurate beyond 800y, 77mm was more accurate and could pierce Tiger frontal armour at least up to 1000y, but Tiger II had too good frontal armour for British A/T and tank guns.
Juha
On 17pdr APDS ammo
Penetration ability against sloped plate, in this case 17pdr against the 80mm thick glacis plate of a Panther: From US 12th Army report on the tests at Isigny
...
(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this test with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is explained by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted."
So 17pdr Sabot used in Isigny was most probably sub-standard, so it's rather useless to draw too much from it on the behaviour of 17pdr Sabot. Those used at Balleroy penetrated 60% of cases and both which hit the glacis penetrated. So odds were that 17pdr APDS shot would penetrate the glacis of Panther from 700y, Tiger was holed even by normal APCBC 17pdr shot up to some 1500y head on if the shot hit, problem was that 17pdr wasn't very accurate beyond 800y, 77mm was more accurate and could pierce Tiger frontal armour at least up to 1000y, but Tiger II had too good frontal armour for British A/T and tank guns.
Juha
Last edited:
ty for the link unlucky in the years i found various errors in baugher page, also they remains usefull
- Thread starter
- #264
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I've seen mentioned elsewhere. Again, maybe a "milkrun" but I think ther's enough evidence to say that the P-80 did fly a very limited number of combat missions during WW2
Why not, using most economical cruise speed while flying to a navigation mark and waiting for rendezvous with other fellows or on a bomb run and still over friendly area. A lot of areas to use most eco cruise and not max cruise.
BTW the second document shows the Spits having both shorter range and less endurance than the Bf 109G. Even with a larger drop tank they have less range. I assume the 90 imp gal drop tanks was a ferry tank or was it used in combat?
The Spit XIV consumed a lot of fule on fast cruise but eco cruise was either better than the LF IX or it had more internal fuel.
- Thread starter
- #266
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And if you're jumped by fighters?
We're not talking about the Spit nor were my comments made about the Spit. The -109 had a constant speed prop and any abrupt attitude changes will cause additional fuel consumption. Although you can theoretically fly the aircraft this extended range, it doesn't mean its going to work unless you're going on a one way mission.
parsifal
Colonel
What were the longest combat missions flown by say the me 109g (any number) that were operationally flown. Not ferry or airfield transfers....talking combat flights of some description.
Maybe ther is some truth to this "myth"
Maybe ther is some truth to this "myth"
I assume the longest range combat flight of a Bf 109 was a recon mission, they had special long range Bf 109G with two 300l underwing drop tanks. Those were known as the G-4/R3 and G-6/R3. Those aircraft would have a range in excess of 1000 miles and a combat radius of 400-500 miles
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
The one I heard was:
Aug. 15, 1945. Navy Lt. Cmdr. T.H. Reidy, commander of VBF 83 and flying a Vought F4U Corsair, records the last confirmed US air-to-air victory of World War II while hostilities are still officially declared, as he shoots down a Nakajima C6N1 Saiun reconnaissance aircraft at 5:40 a.m. local time over Tokyo. Five minutes later, the war officially ends.
Of course, I don't have any of my materials with me so I can't even come close to verifying this.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Dunno if this fits here, but anyway.....
I've always heard it claimed that Allied Medics (the ones with the Medic Cross on them) were not permitted to carry a weapon. Is this true? If so, was it always followed to the letter?
I've always heard it claimed that Allied Medics (the ones with the Medic Cross on them) were not permitted to carry a weapon. Is this true? If so, was it always followed to the letter?
Combat Air Patrols are combat missions, are they not?
Just because there are no enemy to engage, does not mean they were not flying a combat mission.
parsifal
Colonel
Okay, thats the theoretical capability (albeit for a specialised role....I assume you have no issue with saying the Spitfires range is equal to that of its PRU units). Thats not th4e question though. What are the known ranges flown by 109s on combat missions. For example, we know 109s during the BoB flew some missions to London.....a range of about 120-150 miles. I also know that on the eastern Front 109gs were regulalry flying out 180-200 miles on Patrol missions and Intercept missions. I know also that the 109fs and gs stationed in Sicily and Sardinia could not reach the Pedestal convoys as they passed Corsica....a distance of just over 200 miles (from memory). So, are ther better examples of 109s operating at range for a specific mission?
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
The Spitfire IX used the 30-gallon 90-gallon tanks for combat patrols, but was suppose to jettison them, before going into action.
There was a 170-gallon ferry droptank, which gave the IX a still-air range of 1380 land miles, which meant that the IX could (just) reach Malta, from Gibraltar, on a calm day; the problem was having to keep well south of occupied Europe/Corsica/Sicily, and flying a circuitous route.
Eventually it was decided to fit an extra 30-gallon tank behind the pilot (had to be emptied first,) and the first two IXs arrived 10/10/43, with 43 47 gallons spare. Full throttle was used all the way, and they started at 12,000', climbing to 20,000' over Tunis.
There was a 170-gallon ferry droptank, which gave the IX a still-air range of 1380 land miles, which meant that the IX could (just) reach Malta, from Gibraltar, on a calm day; the problem was having to keep well south of occupied Europe/Corsica/Sicily, and flying a circuitous route.
Eventually it was decided to fit an extra 30-gallon tank behind the pilot (had to be emptied first,) and the first two IXs arrived 10/10/43, with 43 47 gallons spare. Full throttle was used all the way, and they started at 12,000', climbing to 20,000' over Tunis.
We have had a thread on max range operations by Spitfire units: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/longest-spitfire-raid-wwii-16182.html
which shows that especially Spitfire Mks VII and VIII were not strickly speaking very shortlegged though not Mustangs or Zeros either. I'd also like to have info on max range ops by 109F-G units, have asked info on that earlier from those who had claimed that 109F-G had in fact excellent range, but never got any other answer that LW had no need for long range fighter ops, which IMHO isn't true. Finns' experience was that 109G-2s and G-6s were fairly short legged but we have here long distances and had experience on Brewster B-239, which was denavalized carrier fighter with 600ltr fuel capacity, and Hawk 75A which had max internal fuel capacity of 613ltr, so 50% more than in 109.
Juha
which shows that especially Spitfire Mks VII and VIII were not strickly speaking very shortlegged though not Mustangs or Zeros either. I'd also like to have info on max range ops by 109F-G units, have asked info on that earlier from those who had claimed that 109F-G had in fact excellent range, but never got any other answer that LW had no need for long range fighter ops, which IMHO isn't true. Finns' experience was that 109G-2s and G-6s were fairly short legged but we have here long distances and had experience on Brewster B-239, which was denavalized carrier fighter with 600ltr fuel capacity, and Hawk 75A which had max internal fuel capacity of 613ltr, so 50% more than in 109.
Juha
- Thread starter
- #275
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
My point!!!
I think a total of 700 litres with the droptank is good for the fairly streamlined 109, but the problem was in much of the areas it frequently operated, the pilot was required to climb over lots of mountain ranges, and then had vast expanses of enemy territory to skirt. Boyne's analogy of the Luftwaffe being like a quilt being used to cover a bed that is too big, pooling resources to one section of the Front just uncovered another section of the Front, it's my favourite characterisation of the Luftwaffe. Performed its job superbly but had no real chance from the start.
So between a mountainous Europe/Med and operational conditions the popularism that LW pilots celebrated the extra range of the 190 seems to make sense. Think of bad weather too, fighter groups get blown off course just like everyone else and rather frequently, war doesn't wait for good weather sometimes. Extra range is good there.
Northwest Europe, the channel Front and low countries, we think of that all the time in the west when we think of Messers over Germany but they're called the low countries for a reason. Everywhere else, 90% of the sphere of the 109 was quite mountainous terrain, lending way to vast marshlands, forests then more mountains. A lot of fuel is spent on the climb, especially if you have to do it when you're heavy.
So between a mountainous Europe/Med and operational conditions the popularism that LW pilots celebrated the extra range of the 190 seems to make sense. Think of bad weather too, fighter groups get blown off course just like everyone else and rather frequently, war doesn't wait for good weather sometimes. Extra range is good there.
Northwest Europe, the channel Front and low countries, we think of that all the time in the west when we think of Messers over Germany but they're called the low countries for a reason. Everywhere else, 90% of the sphere of the 109 was quite mountainous terrain, lending way to vast marshlands, forests then more mountains. A lot of fuel is spent on the climb, especially if you have to do it when you're heavy.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
Sorry, but I can't see the relevance of that; standard operating height, for fighter sweeps, was 20,000'+, and no European mountain comes within 4,000' of that, so all fighters found the need to climb at some stage (just after crossing the enemy coast, in 1941-4, in the RAF's case.) No fighter Squadron is going to go in at low level, unless they're on a strafing/bombing run, and they would expect to have high top cover, somewhere above.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... The paper I've cited is not my work Michael".
I know, Iron man, and I understand your preference for German science .... but you must know that no body was getting funding for anything in 1935 Germany that didn't meet certain 'criteria'. I have the greatest admiration for German achievements .... but also for the very practical Frank Whittle ... which came from the flight line not cloister
.
Best wishes for the season.
MM
I know, Iron man, and I understand your preference for German science .... but you must know that no body was getting funding for anything in 1935 Germany that didn't meet certain 'criteria'. I have the greatest admiration for German achievements .... but also for the very practical Frank Whittle ... which came from the flight line not cloister
.Best wishes for the season.
MM
flying over naples in april '45 it's no the way for find enemy
- Thread starter
- #280
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Its not but if hostilities were still in effect and naples was considered part of a "theater of operations" (which it was) that was a combat mission... From Wiki for what it's worth;
There the 1st Fighter Group received two YP-80A jet fighters (serials 44-83028 and 44-83029) sent to the theater for operational testing ("Project Extraversion"). Although the jets were marked for combat operations with easily identifiable tail stripes and the letters 'A' and 'B' on their noses, and flown on two operational sorties by the 94th FS, neither saw combat before the end of the war.
Here's a couple threads from another forum with some interesting information.
http://forum.armyairforces.com/1st-FG-and-the-Lockheed-YP80A-Shooting-Star-m94873.aspx
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=71485&mode=threaded
Last edited:
